BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE
Dated this the 13th March 2009
(Admitted on 23.06.2008)
2.[FONT="] [/FONT]Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member
3.[FONT="] [/FONT]Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
Kasaragod Taluk & District. . COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri. B.Nanda Kishore)
1. Authorized Signatory,
M/s Marikar Engineering Pvt. Ltd.,
SKODA Division, Kannur Road,
Kerala State-673 021.
(Opposite Party No.1: Exparte)
2. Authorized Signatory,
SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,
Five Star Sehdra,
Industrial Area, I.Q.Aurangabad,
Dist: Aurangabad-431 201.
3. Authorized Signatory,
Tafe Access Ltd.,
Matadakani Cross Road,
Behind Urva Market,
Mangalore. .OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 and 3:
* * * * * * *
ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;
1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
In the present case, 1st Opposite Party is the dealer of Skoda Car at Calicut and 2nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer and 3rd Opposite Party dealer at Mangalore.
The Complainant has purchased Skoda Octavia Rider 1.9 TDI diesel car from the 1st Opposite Party by paying a sum of Rs.11,31,848/-.
At the time of purchase, he was clearly assured and promised that all services including initial free service upto 60,000 kms are available with all dealers of Skoda Auto India Pvt. Limited, with this clear cut assurance the Complainant purchased the car.
That the 1st allegation of the Complainant is that, for the 1st service he kept the car before the Opposite Party No.3 at Mangalore, instead of giving free service the Opposite Party No.3 charged him Rs.2,137/- which is contrary to the terms of the purchase. The 2nd allegation is that, at the time of purchase of car the Complainant was entitled for mats of the car and other free accessories for which he was entitled to but since there was no stock in the 1st Opposite Party, the 1st Opposite Party not delivered the same till this date. It is alleged that the 1st Opposite Party and the other Opposite Parties are supposed to give free service to the car of the Complainant but the Opposite Parties charged the Complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice and thereafter the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 21.1.2008 to return Rs.2,137/- paid by him but the Opposite Party not responded nor complied the demand and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as the Act) seeking direction from the Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and also to refund Rs.2,137/- with interest at 18% p.a. illegally collected by the 3rd Opposite Party and also to provide free maintenance service to the car of Complainant as promised upto 60,000 kms before the 3rd Opposite Party and to pay cost of the proceedings.
2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 despite of serving notice, neither appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 in this case and the acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1.
Opposite Parties 2 and 3 appeared through their counsel and filed version, Opposite Party No.3 is the authorized dealer of Opposite Party No.2 and to maintain good relationship with its customers the Opposite Party No.3 has refunded amount to the Complainant on 4.7.2008 and the Complainant in turn issued a endorsement/receipt dated 4.7.2008, there is no deficiency and there is no consumer dispute and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?
(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
(iii) What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri B.Kumarakripa (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C8 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri.Trivikram Guda, Company Secretary of Opposite Party No.2 (RW-1) and One Mr.Santhosh, Service Executive of Opposite Party No.3, (RW-2) filed counter affidavits and answered the interrogatories served on them. Ex R1 and R2 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. Both the parties submitted written notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes of arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:
In the instant case, it is admitted by the parties that the 1st Opposite Party is the dealer of the Skoda Car at Calicut, Kerala and 2nd Opposite Party is the manufacturer of Skoda Car and 3rd Opposite Party dealer at Mangalore. The Complainant has purchased Skoda Octavia Rider 1.9 TDI diesel car from the 1st Opposite Party by paying a sum of Rs.11,31,848/- as per Ex C1 i.e., invoice dated 20.8.2007.
Now the allegation is that, for the 1st free service he kept the car before the Opposite Party No.3 at Mangalore instead of giving free service the Opposite Party No.3 charged Rs.2,137/- which is against to the terms of the purchase and the Complainant entitled free service. And further alleged that at the time of purchase of car from the 1st Opposite Party, the Complainant was entitled for mats of the car and other free accessories for which he is entitled to but since then there is no stock in the 1st Opposite Party, the Complainant was assured that the same will be delivered but till this date not delivered the same and hence he came up with this complaint.
In support of Complainants case, the Complainant produced Ex C1 to C8 apart from the evidence by way of affidavit. The Opposite Parties also filed affidavit and produced Ex R1 and R2. The records produced by the respective parties especially Ex R1 dated 4.7.2008 a endorsement/receipt issued by the Complainant in favour of the Opposite Party No.3 reveals that the Opposite Party No.3 admittedly collected a sum of Rs.2,137/- from the Complainant inspite of their obligation to give free service. But after filing the above complaint the 3rd Opposite Party by admitting the above deficiency refunded Rs.6,543/- in the place of Rs.2,137/-. In the above said endorsement the Complainant undertaken with the Opposite Party No.3 that he do not hold them as Opposite Party in his complaint in the Consumer Redressal Forum. In other words, we can say that he is not going to press the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 before the Consumer Redressal Forum. It is significant to note that, the above said amount was paid by the Opposite Party No.3 during the pendancy of the above complaint. The Opposite Party No.3 by admitting their mistake refunded the amount more than that they have received which is quite reasonable and hence the complaint against Opposite Party No.2 and 3 deserves to be dismissed.
As far as Opposite Party No.1 is concerned, the Complainant alleged that he has not supplied the mats and other free accessories which the Complainant was entitled. As far as this allegation is concerned, the Complainant filed the affidavit before the FORA stating that the Opposite Party No.1 is not provided the above benefits entitled by the Complainant. The above said evidence is not contradicted by the 1st Opposite Party and hence it requires no further proof. By considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party No.1 ought to have supplied the free accessories at the time of delivery of the car which they have not done which shows their negligence and the same amounts to deficiency in service. And hence we hereby direct the Opposite Party No.1 to deliver the free accessories entitled by the Complainant at the time of purchase of the car. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as compensation for the inconvenience and the harassment and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. The compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
The Complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Party No.1 is directed to deliver the free accessories entitled by the Complainant at the time of purchase of the car. And further Rs.2,000/- awarded as compensation and cost of the litigation expenses. The compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 and 3 is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.
(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of March 2009.)
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)
(SMT. SULOCHANA V. RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHNADRA)
WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT :
CW1- Sri B.Kumarakripa Complainant.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex C1: 20.8.2007: Retail Invoice/cash receipt for 11,31,848/-
by Marikar Engineers Private Limited, Kerala.
Ex C2: 20.8.2007: Temporary Certificate of Registration
issued by Government of Kerala.
Ex C3: 20.8.2007: Sale Certificate in Form No.-21.
Ex C4: : Form No.22 issued by the O.P.No.2
Ex C5: 11.10.2007: Working Invoice issued by 3rd O.P. at
Mangalore in the name of one Mr.Sudhakar Nayak.
Ex C6: 21.1.2008: Advocate Notice issued to 1st and 2nd O.P.
Ex C7: : Postal Receipts two in Nos.
Ex C8: : Postal acknowledgement two in Nos.
WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
RW-1: Sri.Trivikram Guda, Company Secretary of
Opposite Party No.2.
RW-2: Mr.Santhosh, Service Executive of
Opposite Party No.3.
DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
Ex R1: 4.7.2008: Photostat Copy Receipt Issued by the
Ex R2: 4.7.2008: Photostat copy of Petty cash voucher of
Opposite Party No.3.